Mark Steyn: It's not really about Saddam

National Post (Canada) ^ | 02/14/03 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

Ya'll both have been added.

[Paul Ross]

Hellooooo! Wrong thread. Maybe even wrong SITE!

[Renfield]

I intended that post to go to a thread discussing the Nature Conservancy and the Klamath Basin. Not sure how it ended up here.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Please add me to the ping list!

This is starting to make sense! Hmmm!

Lots of ramifications, especially regarding Russia!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Billthedrill]

Good stuff from Steyn. The membership of the Belgium/France/Germany clique alone should give everyone a clue that there's a push going on here for the EU to attempt to flex its political muscle in the absence of any cogent military musculature. This, in the face of a number of new EU members who may or may not go along with the current total domination of EU policy-making by those countries. The latter are, in addition, closer geographically to Saddam and hence to any weapons he may cook up.

From the Axis of Weasels perspective (hereinafter "AOW") it's a win-win situation - they divorce Britain from influence in the EU, they buffalo the new EU members, they neutralize NATO as an active player, and they give everyone on the continent the idea that the only alternative to U.S. hegemony is that of the AOW. Understand that the U.S. and Britain don't have to lose in Iraq for all this to take place - even a swift, relatively bloodless victory there will not affect this ploy.

There is a risk, and appearances are that it's a big one - the other members of the EU have to play along. If they don't, then it becomes painfully obvious that membership in that supposed federation of equals is, in fact, merely a more or less complete surrender of sovereignty in those areas that the bureaucrats in Brussels decide are their rightful demesne. This manifested itself in the form of common economic policy last year, whose lack of success is certain to make people in Madrid and Milan wonder if perhaps adding military and political subordination on top of that is an altogether good idea.

This is a calculated risk. It would be arrogant for Washingon DC to claim that it speaks for all of Europe and despite the noise to that effect I cannot really remember an occasion when it has done so. It is not, evidently, to be considered arrogant for that claim to be made in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin. Not by those in charge of the AOW, at least. By those in Madrid and Milan it's rather another matter.

But one can understand the motivation of the AOW to move the resolution of this situation back into the UN or the like. There, they possess a parity of power with the United States - one does not have to pay for a vote in blood. The AOW possesses three such votes in that venue, and the United States but one, two if Great Britain, God bless 'em, have signed on. That that three-to-two ratio does not represent the respective military and economic power hardly needs pointing out. And that explains a good deal about why the AOW wants it in that court.

[PoisedWoman]

there's a push going on here for the EU to attempt to flex its political muscle in the absence of any cogent military musculature.

Excellent analysis, BTD. Kissinger, interviewed on Charlie Rose last night, also said that Franco-German dominance of EU is the AOW's real game. Ol' Henry stated unequivically that the time for war is NOW.

[Paleo Conservative]

My solution, when the CDU takes over control of the German government, the members of NATO should vote to expel France and Belguim. Some German armoured divisions should be placed along the Belgian border ready to invade France if necessary. NATO would have gotten rid of its biggest problem, the French-German collaboration would be ended, and the EU would be weakend.

[Pokey78]

Will do!

[ez]

WHEN SADDAM HUSSEIN joined the Baath party in Iraq in the 1950s, it had only about 300 members. But it was developing the Leninist party structure that Aflaq had observed in France. There were local cells, divisions, and branches, culminating in the ruling elite, the Regional Command and the Regional Command Council. The Arab Socialist Baath party, or ABSP, developed internal security and intelligence networks and even theoretical journals to develop party dogma. From the first, party statements were marked by a highly charged ideological style, which separated the world into the party of pure good (the Baathists themselves) and the party of pure evil (just about everyone else). As Tariq Aziz, a longtime party leader, noted in the 1980s, "The ABSP is not a conventional political organization, but is composed of cells of valiant revolutionaries. . . . They are experts in secret organization. They are organizers of demonstrations, strikes, and armed revolutions. . . . They are the knights of the struggle."

Once in power, the party behaved, in some respects, as Leninist parties do everywhere. It built a parallel party structure on top of the normal government bureaucracy to enforce loyalty and conformity. It established its own army, in addition to the regular Iraqi army, and its own intelligence service, which at first was given the otherworldly name the Apparatus of Yearnings. Ambitious young people were compelled to join the party if they hoped to rise, or even study abroad. Leaving the Baath party to join another political group remains in Iraq a crime punishable by death.

[Nick Danger]

I think there might be another sub-plot going on here that might ultimately come as quite a surprise to the French. The Germans look to be a bit out of phase on this, with rumors running hot and cold of a split between Schröder and Fischer. In the background of all this, peeking out behind this tree and then that one, is Vladimir Putin. Here's Putin on stage with Schröder. Here he is with Chirac. Now we find out that Germany's Fischer is a serious "red," with a long history of Interesting Acquaintances among left-wing terrorist groups, including the Baader-Meinhof gang. The one-time head of Romania's intelligence service thinks Fischer may have been involved with the KGB. Hmmmm.

Chirac may have one plan for the EU, with one fan in Schröder. Putin may have a different plan, and Fischer may be part of it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well we have this, no mention of Fischer though:

Putin keeps options open on Iraq war ...

[GOPJ]

bump

[GOPJ]

You're right. A ring of truth...

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. It's not France being different "just to be different". It's France being "different" to wreck the Atlantic alliance, sever European ties to America, and remake the Continent in its image. It's the one explanation that fits the evidence best.

[Billthedrill]

Yeh - isn't it lovely? France and Germany are trying to pull the EU tiller, Russia is merrily wiggling it both ways and laughing as the boat rocks. Fact is, Russia stands to gain from a weakened NATO since she has a military and the EU does not. I'd like to think that Chirac and Schroeder took that into account, but those two incompetents don't seem to have it in them, and Putin is more than capable of eating their lunch and handing them the bill.

[ggekko]

I predict that when push comes to shove the French will abstain and not veto. They have pulled this kind of maneuver before.

Tony Blair is betting the ranch on Iraq and we had better back him up and give the Brits a lion's share of the spoils after Hussein is gone.

The Bush team has been insensitve to the growing Franco-German threat in Europe to try set "Fortress Europe" and freeze us out. We need to become engaged in Europe and try to help our Continental allies steer the EU back to its original vision.

[Neophyte]

thank the Lord that Al Gore invented the internet

Steyn is brilliant as usual but maybe too serious today, so this remark of yours did remarkably improved my spirit.

Please, please Pokey... would you mind if I use it as my own?

[The Great Satan]

In his SOTU speech, Bush warned that "one vial"of Saddam's biological WMD would be sufficient to inflict "a day of of horror like none we have ever known" (and 9/11 sets a pretty high bar for that). Obviously, by joining an attack on Iraq, France would be setting itself up for just such a "day of horror" -- as would we be, and as would any country which allied with us. You can therefore take it to the bank that we are not about to launch such an attack, notwithstanding the saber-rattling and posturing, and that we have never had any serious expectation that France, Germany, Russia, etc. are about to join us in an attack. Something else is going on.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Something else is going on.

Like what?

[HanneyBean]

Can you add me to the Steyn ping list? He's fantastic.
Thanks!

[ggekko]

Even if I concede your argument about US attempting to bluff Saddam, France's actions still don't make a great deal of sense. That is to say, France's stated reasons for opposing an attack are not credible.

During the Cold War and facing a similar situation, France would have a made public stink about opposing us and then at the list minute they would abstain from a security council vote and then cut a secret deal to protect their interests. They did in fact cut a secret deal this time about 6 weeks ago but then for reasons that remain obscure they repudiated that deal. I am most inclined at this point to believe Steyn's explanation for France's duplicity. Either that or Chirac is a complete idiot who has backed himslef into corner by letting fawning press coverage go to his head. If the 2nd explanation is correct, then maybe Chirac will have a nervous breakdown after a successful invasion just like Anthony Eden did during the Suez crisis of 1956.

I don't think we are bluffing; we would never have deployed the 101st Airborne division to the Gulf for a bluff.